WHY ARE OP-EDS SO DUMB?

I've no real interest in engaging with the illogical mess that is The Washington Post's lead Sunday op-ed on why women are dumber than men. I don't want to engage with the article because, sometimes in Washington, editors take controversy as a sign of success. "The response is heated, but that just shows we hit a nerve, forced people to discuss an important issue. Namely, whether women are idiots." So instead, I'll say this: They should be ashamed of publishing an article of such poor quality.
The author is not a neuroscientist nor even a psychologist. She's a provocateur, and a professional anti-feminist, and the editors at the Post were so enamored by the brashness of her argument that they gave no thought to either its truth or her familiarity with the relevant research. This is an article in which intelligence is compared, I shit you not, by comparing head sizes and driving records. It would be laughable if it were sitting on the reject pile. Instead, it's shameful, and the Post owes its readers an apology. Not, I hasten to add, because the thesis was so daring and our tender sensibilities must be soothed. But because the work was so shoddy and the author so poorly chosen. An op-ed page can only exist so long as the reader can trust the paper's judgment in assignments. That's what this piece calls into question.
Hilzoy has more.